AT&T unleashes LTE Advanced carrier aggregation in Chicago

[tommym65]

Two band 25 carriers would make more sense than a band 25 and band 26 carrier (I am assuming you can't aggregate a FDD & TDD carrier as well). While Sprint might not have enough spectrum in every market, I would suggest they could do it in a majority of the them. 

This does make sense. When Sprint starts doing LTE-A advanced devices for B41 CA, they should also include CA for B25 too. Right now, it would only be useful in a couple of places in Shentel land. However, there likely will be more this year. And anywhere there are two B25 carriers, why not use both carriers in aggregate? It would probably require an LTE version upgrade too. But they should plan for it and just do it.

 

Robert via Samsung Note 8.0 using Tapatalk Pro

 

What is the advantage of aggregating B25 Sprint carriers when B25 is primarily going to be used by phones?  Moreover, wouldn't aggregation permit a small number of devices to essentially take over all the carriers for a given sector, should those devices run applications with high bandwidth needs?

 

It seems that enabling multiple independent B25 carriers would make the most sense, especially in markets which are already slammed for B25 capacity (can you say "Chicago"?).  Hesse has stated that the NV phase 1 goal is to provide ~6 Mbps sustainable bandwidth.  Carrier aggregation could in theory provide much higher bandwidth than that, but could also significantly reduce the number of devices which could concurrently use any given sector, a very undesirable result at least for urban markets.

 

It seems more logical to focus CA development on B41 spectrum, where Sprint controls an abundance of bandwidth.  Once that pesky Wimax is curtailed (with its current highly inefficient spectrum utilization), B41 bandwidth can be unleashed for those devices which really need it.

[cdk]

What is the advantage of aggregating B25 Sprint carriers when B25 is primarily going to be used by phones?  Moreover, wouldn't aggregation permit a small number of devices to essentially take over all the carriers for a given sector, should those devices run applications with high bandwidth needs?

 

It seems that enabling multiple independent B25 carriers would make the most sense, especially in markets which are already slammed for B25 capacity (can you say "Chicago"?).  Hesse has stated that the NV phase 1 goal is to provide ~6 Mbps sustainable bandwidth.  Carrier aggregation could in theory provide much higher bandwidth than that, but could also significantly reduce the number of devices which could concurrently use any given sector, a very undesirable result at least for urban markets.

 

It seems more logical to focus CA development on B41 spectrum, where Sprint controls an abundance of bandwidth.  Once that pesky Wimax is curtailed (with its current highly inefficient spectrum utilization), B41 bandwidth can be unleashed for those devices which really need it.

 

The extra carrier(s) would provide capacity. Aggregating them would provide additional bandwith for capable devices. Unless I am mistaken aggregation doesn't eliminate devices incapable from accessing one of the carriers.

 

Yes B41 should be the first priority for it though.

[tommym65]

The extra carrier(s) would provide capacity. Aggregating them would provide additional bandwith for capable devices. Unless I am mistaken aggregation doesn't eliminate devices incapable from accessing one of the carriers.

 

Yes B41 should be the first priority for it though.

 

You are right that CA doesn't eliminate non-CA devices, but my concern is that the CA-capable devices on B25 could potentially hog the aggregated bandwidth.  My paranoia may result from the market that I live in, where Sprint is currently struggling with one single tiny choking B25 carrier, with no live B26 yet (for those devices which can even use it).  B41, on the other hand is abundant and has great coverage as you get near the Big City, and this with only a small fraction of planned sites actually turned on.  Add to that the enormous amount of B41 spectrum currently allocated to Wimax, which seems to use many carriers per site as opposed to only 1 per site with LTE, and the B41 potential seems almost unlimited (AJ will likely disagree here). And finally factor in the reduced diameter of B41 coverage, which will permit many, many more B41 sites with concomitant increases in market-wide bandwidth, and my poor mind is boggled.

[cdk]

You are right that CA doesn't eliminate non-CA devices, but my concern is that the CA-capable devices on B25 could potentially hog the aggregated bandwidth.  My paranoia may result from the market that I live in, where Sprint is currently struggling with one single tiny choking B25 carrier, with no live B26 yet (for those devices which can even use it).  B41, on the other hand is abundant and has great coverage as you get near the Big City, and this with only a small fraction of planned sites actually turned on.  Add to that the enormous amount of B41 spectrum currently allocated to Wimax, which seems to use many carriers per site as opposed to only 1 per site with LTE, and the B41 potential seems almost unlimited (AJ will likely disagree here). And finally factor in the reduced diameter of B41 coverage, which will permit many, many more B41 sites with concomitant increases in market-wide bandwidth, and my poor mind is boggled.

 

The users of any device could potential hog whatever bandwith they can. That is an issue that needs to be dealt with separately, regardless of carrier aggregation.

 

Yes, B41 needs to lead the way. The eventual shuttering of the Wimax network will be part of it. I think the current Wimax carriers are either 5 or 10 Mhz (so 15 or 30 per site). Even with that I think in many areas a second 20 Mhz B41 carrier is possible. The bigger issue (in my mind) is getting the deployment of the hardware and backhaul rolling first.

 

A second B25 carrier (aggregated or not) should certainly be pushed where it is possible too. Given the large number of LTE devices on the network (and a good percentage of them will continue to be single or dual band only for a while) this would also be a welcome improvement. 

[Vince]

Milan, when you were at O'Hare with your analyzer, did you happen to look for a USCC carrier?

[Deval]

If you mean how many Verizon AWS capable smartphones are on the market, the answer is only a handful, and only two Cat 4. Note 3 and LG G2.

 

That said about 25% of Verizon's LTE subscribers are using AWS capable device.

 

Ah ok, so they will be able to access the AWS network seamlessly? 

 

I'm doing a presentation to my team and want to make sure I highlight the competition correctly

[Vince]

Ah ok, so they will be able to access the AWS network seamlessly?

 

I'm doing a presentation to my team and want to make sure I highlight the competition correctly

The iPhone 5s/c can access their band 4, too. I know because I had a big red buddy waving a 63mbps" e-penis at a bar over the weekend.

[cdk]

The iPhone 5s/c can access their band 4, too. I know because I had a big red buddy waving a 63mbps" e-penis at a bar over the weekend.

 

Just challenge him to a best of 7 contest. By the end of it he will be on his way to overage city...

[jamisonshaw125]

Didn't want to create a new thread for this. But relevant to AT&T. They've just made a slight competitive change in their data plans....It also does not require signing a new contract.

 

http://consumerist.com/2014/03/10/att-tries-to-fight-off-t-mobilesprint-encroachment-with-65-data-plans-for-individual-users/

 

 I am not sure if this violates the rules or not. 

[Deval]

The iPhone 5s/c can access their band 4, too. I know because I had a big red buddy waving a 63mbps" e-penis at a bar over the weekend.

 

Ok cool, thanks!

[S4GRU]

What is the advantage of aggregating B25 Sprint carriers when B25 is primarily going to be used by phones?  Moreover, wouldn't aggregation permit a small number of devices to essentially take over all the carriers for a given sector, should those devices run applications with high bandwidth needs?

 

It seems that enabling multiple independent B25 carriers would make the most sense, especially in markets which are already slammed for B25 capacity (can you say "Chicago"?).  Hesse has stated that the NV phase 1 goal is to provide ~6 Mbps sustainable bandwidth.  Carrier aggregation could in theory provide much higher bandwidth than that, but could also significantly reduce the number of devices which could concurrently use any given sector, a very undesirable result at least for urban markets.

 

It seems more logical to focus CA development on B41 spectrum, where Sprint controls an abundance of bandwidth.  Once that pesky Wimax is curtailed (with its current highly inefficient spectrum utilization), B41 bandwidth can be unleashed for those devices which really need it.

 

There is no detriment for aggregating carriers as you've outlined, except for possibly, that if Band 25 becomes faster then people may use their LTE on Band 25 more.  I guess that's possible.  But should Sprint limit the Band 41 speeds to 20Mbps so it does not encourage overuse?  Of course not.  It shouldn't do that for Band 25 either.

 

And think about it from this angle...if/when B25 CA devices were to hit the market, they would all be Triband anyway.  These will be devices that already run on B41 also.  These people who mostly are on B41 are going to use the data the way they are used to using data.  Being on B25 will not change their behavior.  You might as well allow two B25 carriers be aggregated and they experience a more B41-like experience when they are in a place they connect to B25.

 

Also, at almost every rural/semi rural site in the country now, Sprint already has enough spectrum to deploy two B25 LTE carriers.  They could deploy the second, institute CA on it, and they would have a B41 like experience without ever even needing to deploy B41.  There are a lot of upsides to doing CA on B25.  For the life of me, the only negative I can think of is people MAY want to use it more.  Sprint should not avoid building their network in the best way possible because people may use it more.  They can take other measures if and when that becomes a problem.

 

For right now, unlimited is the way of Sprint.  So Sprint needs to handle capex in the best way possible maximizing performance for the customers as best as possible while continuing unlimited.  I would pull the trigger on B25 CA right away, and get in all future devices by OEMs ASAP.  But who am I?

 

Robert

[belusnecropolis]

^MOAR of this, and you are a smart person who realizes ambition, and does not simply dissuade an idea for better service and capability because it does not fit with a perceived notion of what and how a network can do what it does and more.

[Destroyallcubes]

On CA if say they used two b25 "carriers", could one "carrier" come from one site, and another from a different site depending on capacity strain per "carrier" on the given site?

[S4GRU]

On CA if say they used two b25 "carriers", could one "carrier" come from one site, and another from a different site depending on capacity strain per "carrier" on the given site?

I'm uncertain about this.

 

Robert via Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[dedub]

On CA if say they used two b25 "carriers", could one "carrier" come from one site, and another from a different site depending on capacity strain per "carrier" on the given site?

 

that would be pretty awesome if they could. I would imagine it would take more coordination at the network level due to dealing with disparate base stations, but depending on how they are/have implemented CA, it may be controlled at the MSC level anyway.

 

The other issue with multiple base station carrier aggregation is of course differing signal and congestion/latency levels.

[CaptainSlow]

On CA if say they used two b25 "carriers", could one "carrier" come from one site, and another from a different site depending on capacity strain per "carrier" on the given site?

If I remember correctly, the answer is yes - CA uses a 'primary' cell which serves as the anchor for the connection and one or more 'secondary' cells to be aggregated with the primary, and the secondary cells need not come from the same site as the primary.

[milan03]

Milan, when you were at O'Hare with your analyzer, did you happen to look for a USCC carrier?

I really only had enough time to run AWS sweeps, and only saw Verizon's activity in A+B blocks, and T-Mobile in E+F. AT&T's C blocks was a no-show, as well as Leap's D block.

[Vince]

I really only had enough time to run AWS sweeps, and only saw Verizon's activity in A+B blocks, and T-Mobile in E+F. AT&T's C blocks was a no-show, as well as Leap's D block.

Just out of curiosity: how do you use a spectrum analyzer in an airport without being tackled to the ground? Seems like a device that the TSA would frown upon.

[MacinJosh]

Just out of curiosity: how do you use a spectrum analyzer in an airport without being tackled to the ground? Seems like a device that the TSA would frown upon.

That's a great question! Some of our members have been questioned in public areas by police officers for using a spectrum analyzer, and not even being in, at, or near an airport.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5S using Tapatalk 2

[imex99]

Just out of curiosity: how do you use a spectrum analyzer in an airport without being tackled to the ground? Seems like a device that the TSA would frown upon.

That's a great question! Some of our members have been questioned in public areas by police officers for using a spectrum analyzer, and not even being in, at, or near an airport.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5S using Tapatalk 2

Would love to see this out in the wild from one of our members...

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[milan03]

Just out of curiosity: how do you use a spectrum analyzer in an airport without being tackled to the ground? Seems like a device that the TSA would frown upon.

hah, Chicago Airport has these small charging booths at the Gates where users sit down, charge their laptops and phones, so it was kinda perfect as everyone is respecting your privacy.. kinda.. Plus, using a small handheld analyzer definitely helps in these situations 

 

I would absolutely not even consider walking around the airport sweeping the airwaves lol!

[NiteSnow]

That's a great question! Some of our members have been questioned in public areas by police officers for using a spectrum analyzer, and not even being in, at, or near an airport.

 

 

Sent from Josh's iPhone 5S using Tapatalk 2

This is why I love having my HAM license. I get scanner exemption. I can be mobile with almost any type of radio equipment I want and the police can't do shit.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Destroyallcubes]

Well I think I just stumbled upon what Icon AT&T will use for its Carrier aggregation. In the systemUI.apk file I saw one PNG of 4g-LTE plus, all they did is add a + symbol to the LTE

[S4GRU]

Well I think I just stumbled upon what Icon AT&T will use for its Carrier aggregation. In the systemUI.apk file I saw one PNG of 4g-LTE plus, all they did is add a + symbol to the LTE

 

Sprint should have done something similar with Spark on B41 to help differentiate it from other bands.  Maybe they will do it when they bring CA to B41?

Robert

[Destroyallcubes]

Sprint should have done something similar with Spark on B41 to help differentiate it from other bands.  Maybe they will do it when they bring CA to B41?

Robert

Well it might not be to hard to change some stuff around and with the help of Signal check maybe make an app or something that can replace b41 "walmart" symbol with the LTE+